DOCSLIB.ORG

Unit 20B Moose. Chapter 23: Moose Management Report of Survey-Inventory Activities 1 July 2011-30 June 2013

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Unit 20B Moose. Chapter 23: Moose Management Report of Survey-Inventory Activities 1 July 2011-30 June 2013 SPECIES Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Wildlife Conservation (907) 465-4190 – PO Box 115526 MANAGEMENT REPORT Juneau, AK 99811-5526 CHAPTER 23: MOOSE MANAGEMENT REPORT From: 1 July 2011 To: 30 June 20131 LOCATION 2 GAME MANAGEMENT UNIT: 20B (9,196 mi ) GEOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION: Drainages into the north bank of the Tanana River between Delta Creek and Manley Hot Springs BACKGROUND Moose numbers increased in Unit 20B throughout the 1950s and early 1960s after extensive wildfires improved moose habitat and federal predator reduction programs reduced wolf predation on moose (McNay 1992). Moose numbers declined following severe winters in 1965, 1970, 1971, and 1974. Increasing wolf predation and liberal either-sex hunting seasons contributed to the moose population decline. By 1976 moose densities were low, and the hunting season had been reduced to 10 days for bulls only in most of Unit 20B. Moose populations again increased following wolf reduction programs during 1980–1986. Moose hunting seasons were extended from 10 days in 1981 and 1982 to 20 days during 1983–1987. Subsequent increases in harvest along with declining bull:cow ratios and evidence of low recruitment in some areas resulted in hunting seasons being shortened to 15 days in 1988. Despite this 5-day reduction in the season, harvests increased further from nearly 400 bulls in 1988 to more than 700 bulls in 1998. Moose population trends from the late 1980s through the 1990s were largely unknown because unitwide surveys were not conducted. However, unitwide surveys conducted in 2001, 2003–2006, 2008, and 2009 indicated that the moose population increased from an estimated 9,800 (about 1.1 moose/mi2) in 1990 to a peak of about 20,000 (about 2.2 moose/mi2) in 2009. Demand for moose hunting opportunities in Unit 20B is high. Extensive road and trail systems provide overland access, and numerous waterways such as the Tolovana, Tatalina, Chatanika, Goldstream, Salcha, and Chena rivers provide boat access. Both general season and permit hunts are available to meet the demand to harvest moose in Unit 20B. Many of the permit hunts are available only to resident hunters. Fifty-eight permit hunts were available to hunt moose in Unit 20B during RY11 and RY12: 2 hunts for “any moose” and 56 hunts for “antlerless moose” (i.e., 1 in the Fairbanks management area [FMA] by 1 At the discretion of the reporting biologist, this unit report may contain data collected outside the report period. Chapter 23: Moose management report ADF&G/DWC/SMR-2014-6 Page 23-1 bow and arrow, 1 in the Creamer’s Field Migratory Waterfowl Refuge [Creamer’s Refuge] within FMA by muzzleloader, and 56 in central and western Unit 20B outside FMA). The Minto Flats management area (MFMA) was established in 1979 to restrict harvest in a low-density moose population. In 1988 the Alaska legislature established the Minto Flats State Game Refuge to ensure the protection and enhancement of habitat and the conservation of fish and wildlife; and to guarantee the continuation of hunting, fishing, trapping, and other compatible public uses within approximately 900 mi2 of the Minto Flats area. FMA was established in 1983 to provide moose hunting opportunities around the Fairbanks urban area by bow and arrow only. This area was closed to hunting in the late 1970s and early 1980s to prevent excessive harvest. Boundaries of FMA changed numerous times. The most recent changes went into effect in July 2004. FMA currently encompasses about 300 mi2, about 50 mi2 of which have a relatively dense human population. Even though harvest is generally low, this permit hunt for antlerless moose is popular. For management purposes, Unit 20B is divided into 3 geographic zones: 1) western Unit 20B (2,942 mi2), including the Minto Flats, Tatalina Creek drainage, Tolovana River drainage, and areas farther west; 2) eastern Unit 20B (2,425 mi2) including the Little Salcha and Salcha river drainages; and 3) central Unit 20B (3,829 mi2), the remainder. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION MANAGEMENT GOALS Protect, maintain, and enhance the moose population and its habitat in concert with other components of the ecosystem. Provide for continued subsistence use of moose by Alaska residents who have customarily and traditionally used the population. Provide the greatest sustained opportunity to participate in hunting moose. Provide an opportunity to view and photograph moose. Protect human life and property in human–moose interactions. MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE Manage for a posthunting sex ratio of ≥30 bulls:100 cows unitwide and ≥20 bulls:100 cows in each count area (i.e., eastern Unit 20B, central Unit 20B, western Unit 20B, and MFMA). In addition to our management objective, Alaska Administrative Code 92.108 identifies the Unit 20B moose population as important for providing high levels of harvest for human consumptive use, and established intensive management population and harvest objectives of 12,000–15,000 and 600–1,500 moose, respectively. Chapter 23: Moose management report ADF&G/DWC/SMR-2014-6 Page 23-2 METHODS POPULATION STATUS AND TREND Weather and snow conditions were not adequate in 2011 to allow us to complete a unitwide survey. In November 2012, we completed the survey in eastern Unit 20B, but conditions deteriorated and the remainder of Unit 20B was not completed. We used the geospatial population estimator (GSPE) method to conduct the survey (Ver Hoef 2001, 2008; Kellie and DeLong 2006). Previous analyses suggest survey effort and the precision of population estimates are optimized when the survey effort includes approximately 40% low-density and 60% high-density sample units (SU; Kellie and DeLong 2006). We selected a simple random sample of SUs (n = 164) from each stratum using Microsoft Excel® software. Additional SUs (n = 15) were selected to fill in gaps in the coverage. Preliminary studies suggest using a sightability correction factor (SCF) of 1.16–1.25 for moose that were present, but not observed, during the survey using the GSPE method (Boertje et al. 2009). Because an SCF has not been determined in Unit 20B, we used the midpoint of SCF data suggested by Boertje et al. (2009) and applied an SCF of 1.21 to GSPE estimates in Unit 20B to estimate total moose numbers. In November 2013, snow conditions were adequate in central and western Unit 20B to complete a GSPE survey. We used the same sampling and sightability methodology used in 2012. We surveyed 145 of 425 SUs from eastern and western Unit 20B of which 101 were high density SUs and 44 were low density. To evaluate management objectives, we obtained a unitwide estimate of moose abundance by combining the 2012 population estimate from eastern Unit 20B with the 2013 population estimate for central and western Unit 20B. Twinning Rate Surveys Twinning rates were estimated from surveys conducted in traditional twinning survey trend count areas in Minto Flats and areas surveyed in central Unit 20B since 2006. Surveys in MFMA consisted of parallel transects flown at approximately ½-mile intervals at ≤500 feet above ground level in PA-18 or Bellanca Scout aircraft by experienced pilots. This method is most effective in MFMA because of the high density of moose and the open habitat. A high proportion of Central Unit 20B is forested, so surveys in central Unit 20B consisted of searching good moose habitat at 500–1,000 feet above ground level in a Bellanca Scout or PA-18. All moose observed were classified as bull; yearling cow; adult cow without a calf; or adult cow with single, twin, or triplet calves. In past years, we terminated surveys and excluded the data if <15% of the cows had calves. Twinning rate was calculated as the proportion of cows with twins or triplets from the sample of all cows with calves. 2012 Twinning Surveys Minto Flats Management Area. East–west transects were flown on 24 May between the Tolovana River and Swanneck Slough to the west and Dunbar Trail to the east beginning at 65°02.9′N and working south until a sample of 50 parturient moose were found or we reached a latitude of 64°55.0′N. The survey was flown with a PA-18 Super Cub. Leaf-out was approximately 80%. Weather, turbulence, and airsickness were not factors. Survey flight time was 2.75 hours. Chapter 23: Moose management report ADF&G/DWC/SMR-2014-6 Page 23-3 Central Unit 20B. On 30 May, we used a Bellanca Scout aircraft to search from Fairbanks down Goldstream Creek to Standard Creek road, over Luck Dome to Murphy Dome, up the Chatanika River to the Steese Highway, over Fort Knox gold mine to the Little Chena River, down the Little Chena River to the Chena River, up the Chena River to the flood control project and in the vicinity of Eielson Air Force Base and then down the north side of the Tanana River to Fairbanks. Weather, turbulence and airsickness were not factors in the survey. Total survey time was 4.7 hours. 2013 Twinning Surveys Minto Flats Management Area. East–west transects were flown on 24 May between the Tolovana River and Swanneck Slough to the west and Dunbar Trail to the east beginning at 65°02.9′N and working south until a sample of 50 parturient moose were found or we reached a latitude of 64°55.0′N. The survey was flown with a PA-18 Super Cub. Leaf-out was approximately 50%. Turbulence and airsickness were not factors, but unseasonable warm temperatures (75–89°F) made it hard to locate moose. Many of the moose were found in the more shaded and dense forest or shrubs, likely escaping the heat; therefore they were more difficult to see from the air.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Characterization of Moose Movement Patterns and Movement of Black Bears in Relation to Anthropogenic Food Sources on Joint Basse
    Form Approved REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 074-0188 AD_________________ (Leave blank) Award Number(s): W81XWH-08-2-0179-0002 W912DY-09-2-0011 W9126G-10-2-0042 TITLE: Characterization of moose movement patterns and movement of black bears in relation to anthropogenic food sources on Joint Base Elmendorf- Richardson, Alaska PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: (Enter the name and degree of Principal Investigator and any Associates) Sean D. Farley,Ph.D.; Perry Barboza, Ph.D ; Herman Griese, MS; Christopher Garner, BS CONTRACTING ORGANIZATION: 673d Civil Engineering Squadron 724 Quartermaster Drive Joint Base Elmendorf Richardson, Alaska 99505-8860 REPORT DATE: Sept 2014 TYPE OF REPORT: Final PREPARED FOR: U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command Fort Detrick, Maryland 21702-5012 (W81XWH-08-2-0179-0002) Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Army Engineering and Support Center Huntsville, Alabama 35816-1822 (W912DY-09-2-0011) Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Army Engineering and Support Center Fort Worth, Texas 76102-0300 (W9126G-10-2-0042) DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT: (Check one) X Approved for public release; distribution unlimited Distribution limited to U.S. Government agencies only; report contains proprietary information The views, opinions and/or findings contained in this report are those of the author(s) and should not be construed as an official Department of the Army position, policy or decision unless so designated by other documentation. 1 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information.
    [Show full text]
  • Alaska's Predator Control Programs
    Alaska’sAlaska’s PredatorPredator ControlControl ProgramsPrograms Managing for Abundance or Abundant Mismanagement? In 1995, Alaska Governor Tony Knowles responded to negative publicity over his state’s predator control programs by requesting a National Academy of Sciences review of Alaska’s entire approach to predator control. Following the review Governor Knowles announced that no program should be considered unless it met three criteria: cost-effectiveness, scientific scrutiny and broad public acceptability. The National Academy of Sciences’ National Research Council (NRC) released its review, Wolves, Bears, and Their Prey in Alaska, in 1997, drawing conclusions and making recommendations for management of Alaska’s predators and prey. In 1996, prior to the release of the NRC report, the Wolf Management Reform Coalition, a group dedicated to promoting fair-chase hunting and responsible management of wolves in Alaska, published Showdown in Alaska to document the rise of wolf control in Alaska and the efforts undertaken to stop it. This report, Alaska’s Predator Control Programs: Managing for Abundance or Abundant Mismanagement? picks up where that 1996 report left off. Acknowledgements Authors: Caroline Kennedy, Theresa Fiorino Editor: Kate Davies Designer: Pete Corcoran DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE Defenders of Wildlife is a national, nonprofit membership organization dedicated to the protection of all native wild animals and plants in their natural communities. www.defenders.org Cover photo: © Nick Jans © 2011 Defenders of Wildlife 1130 17th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036-4604 202.682.9400 333 West 4th Avenue, Suite 302 Anchorage, AK 99501 907.276.9453 Table of Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 2 2. The National Research Council Review ......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Removing the Gray Wolf (Canis Lupus) from the List of Endangered
    References Cited for the Proposed Rule “Removing the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Maintaining Protections for the Mexican Wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) by Listing It as Endangered” Adams, L.G., R.O. Stephenson, B.W. Dale, R.T. Ahgook, and D. J. Demma. 2008. Population dynamics and harvest characteristics of wolves in the central Brooks Range, Alaska. Wildlife Monographs 170: 1-25. Adaptive Management Oversight Committee and Interagency Field Team [AMOC and IFT]. 2005. Mexican wolf Blue Range reintroduction project 5-year review. Unpublished report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA. http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/mexicanwolf/MWNR_FYRD.shtml Anschutz, Steve. 2003. E-mail from Anschutz, USFWS Nebraska Field Office Supervisor to Laura Ragan, USFWS Regional Office, Ft. Snelling, MN, dated 04/01/03. Subject: gray wolf shot. 1 p. Anschutz, Steve. 2006. E-mail from Anschutz, USFWS Nebraska Field Office Supervisor to Ron Refsnider, USFWS Regional Office, Ft. Snelling, MN, dated 10/30/06. Subject: Nebraska wolf from 1995? Arizona Department of Health Services. 2012. Rabies Statistics and Maps, 2008-2012. www.azdhs.gov/phs/oids/vector/rabies/stats.htm. Accessed on July 23, 2012. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2007. Predator management in Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Wildlife Conservation. 32pp. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2011. 2011-2012 Alaska trapping regulations. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 48pp. Allendorf, F.W. and N. Ryman. 2002. The role of genetics in population viability analysis. Pages 50-85 in Beissinger, S.R., and D.R.
    [Show full text]
  • Moose Survey Report 2013
    AERIAL MOOSE SURVEY on and around KANUTI NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE November, 2013 Tim Craig US Fish and Wildlife Service and Glenn W. Stout Alaska Department of Fish and Game February 2014 DATA SUMMARY Survey Dates: 12- 18 November (Intensive survey only) Total area covered by survey: Kanuti National Wildlife Refuge (hereafter, Refuge) Survey Area: 2,715 mi2 (7,029 km2); Total Survey Area: 3,736 mi2 (9676 km2) Total Number sample units Refuge Survey Area: 508; Total Survey Area: 701 Number of sample units surveyed: Refuge Survey Area: 105; Total Survey Area: 129 Total moose observed: Refuge Survey Area: 259 moose (130 cows, 95 bulls, and 34 calves); Total Survey Area: 289 moose (145 cows, 105 bulls, 39 calves) November population estimate: Refuge Survey Area: 551 moose (90% confidence interval = 410 - 693) comprised of 283 cows, 183 bulls, and 108 calves*; Total Survey Area: 768 moose (90% confidence interval = 589 – 947) comprised of 387 cows, 257 bulls, 144 calves*. *Subtotals by class do not equal the total population because of accumulated error associated with each estimate. Estimated total density: Refuge Survey Area: 0.20 moose/mi2 (0.08 moose/km2); Total Survey Area: 0.21 moose/mi2 (0.08 moose/km2) Estimated ratios: Refuge survey area: 36 calves:100 cows, 11 yearling bulls:100 cows, 37 large bulls:100 cows, 65 total bulls:100 cows; Total Survey Area: 35 calves:100 cows, 11 yearling bulls:100 cows, 40 large bulls:100 cows, 67 total bulls:100 cows 2 INTRODUCTION The Kanuti National Wildlife Refuge (hereafter, Refuge), the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) and the Bureau of Land Management cooperatively conducted a moose (Alces alces) population survey 12 - 18 November 2013 on, and around, the Refuge.
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Note Usda Natural Resources Conservation Service Alaska
    TECHNICAL NOTE USDA NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE ALASKA Alaska Biology Technical Note – No. 1 HABITAT ENHANCEMENT for MOOSE in BOREAL ALASKA Introduction Moose evolved in Eurasia and migrated to North America over the Bering Land Bridge during the Pleistocene. Moose have been an important part of Alaska Native subsistence culture for millennia. In addition to being one of the most familiar large mammals in the state, they are also one of the most sought-after wildlife species in Alaska. Harvest is over 7,000 animals per year which yields millions of pounds of meat for human consumption. Wildlife management seeks to manage wildlife populations at an optimum abundance and provide sustainable harvest, maintain a desired nutritional or health condition of wildlife species and their forage plants, and provide for non- consumptive uses, such as wildlife viewing. Abundance of moose is constrained by hunting, predation, other sources of natural mortality (e.g., winter severity) as Moose. Photo courtesy of US Fish & Wildlife Service. well as the quantity and quality of available habitat. In the boreal forest, productive moose habitat is largely maintained by stochastic wildland fire in uplands and more regular fluvial action constrained to riparian corridors. During most years in Alaska, over one million acres of forest is burned. Many of these fires create optimal moose habitat for 20 – 30 years until preferred forage species like aspen, birch, and poplar grow out of the reach of moose or are replaced by non-forage species, typically spruce. Intensive foraging by high density moose populations can accelerate successional change from preferred forage species to non-preferred species.
    [Show full text]
  • September 2018
    DSC NEWSLETTER VOLUME 31,Camp ISSUE 8 TalkSEPTEMBER 2018 DSC Heartland Chapter Gets Kids Outside n late July, DSC Heartland hosted a youth IHunter Education certification course in IN THIS ISSUE Nebraska. This was done through a joint effort with the Nebraska Game and Parks doing most Letter from the President .....................1 of the advertising for us and providing us with Outdoor Youth Event .............................4 all the teaching materials necessary along with Photo Contest .........................................5 the test form. Papillion Gun Club in Papillion, Auction Donations .................................6 Nebraska was our host providing facilities for Convention Registration ....................22 Hotel Reservations ..............................25 a classroom setting and kitchen. Lunch was DSC Foundation ...................................27 provided for both kids and parents. Trophy Awards .....................................28 At their top-notch trap shooting facility, the DSC 100 Photos ....................................28 chapter held a youth clinic for the kids that chose Obituary ..................................................29 to stay and participate after the hunter ed course Texas Game Warden Graduation....30 was completed. Instructors took each of the kids DSC New Mexico Gala ......................31 one by one to the trap shooting range and taught Happy Hill Farm ....................................32 them proper shooting techniques. They live-fired After a youth Hunter Ed course, DSC Heartland
    [Show full text]
  • A Special Program for Secondary Schools in Bristol Bay
    DOCUMNNT RNSUPIR RC 003 626 ED 032 173 By-Holthaus, Cary H. Bristol Bay. Teaching Eskimo Culture to Eskimo Students:A Special Program for Secondary Schools in Pub Date May 68 Note -215p. EDRS Price MF -$1.00 HC Not Availablefrom EDRS. *Eskimos.HistoryInstruction, Descriptors -*Biculturalism,CultureConflict.*Curriculum Development. Instructional Materials, LanguageInstruction, *Resource Materials.Rural Areas, Secondary Education, *Social Studies Identifiers-Alaska, Aleuts, Bristol Bay Eskimo youth in Bristol Bay,Alaska. caught between the clashof native and white cultures, have difficultyidentifying with either culture.The curriculum in Indian schools in the area. gearedprimarily to white middle-classstandards. is not relevant to the students. Textbooks andstandardized tests, based onexperiences common to a white culture, hold little meaningfor Eskimo students.Teachers unfamiliar with Eskimo traditions and culture areunable to understand orcommunicate with the native people. Since the existingcurriculum in Bristol Bayschools ignores thestudents' cultural background. theauthor considers the creationof a unified multi-semester social studies curriculumabout the native heritage as amethod of dealing with students' problems. This paper. as afirst step in creating such acurriculum, can and is directed serve as a sourcematerial for informationabout the Bristol Bay area. toward the developmentof a one semester secondarylevel course in native history of the paper consists ofmaterial about the history. and culture. A major portion folklore of geography.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Strategies for Species Affected by Apparent Competition
    Conservation Practice and Policy Conservation Strategies for Species Affected by Apparent Competition HEIKO U. WITTMER,∗ ROBERT SERROUYA,† L. MARK ELBROCH,‡ AND ANDREW J. MARSHALL§ ∗School of Biological Sciences, Victoria University of Wellington, P.O. Box 600, Wellington 6140, New Zealand email [email protected] †Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2E9, Canada ‡Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation Biology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, U.S.A. §Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, U.S.A. Abstract: Apparent competition is an indirect interaction between 2 or more prey species through a shared predator, and it is increasingly recognized as a mechanism of the decline and extinction of many species. Through case studies, we evaluated the effectiveness of 4 management strategies for species affected by apparent competition: predator control, reduction in the abundances of alternate prey, simultaneous control of predators and alternate prey, and no active management of predators or alternate prey. Solely reducing predator abundances rapidly increased abundances of alternate and rare prey, but observed increases are likely short-lived due to fast increases in predator abundance following the cessation of control efforts. Sub- stantial reductions of an abundant alternate prey resulted in increased predation on endangered huemul (Hippocamelus bisulcus) deer in Chilean Patagonia, which highlights potential risks associated with solely reducing alternate prey species. Simultaneous removal of predators and alternate prey increased survival of island foxes (Urocyon littoralis) in California (U.S.A.) above a threshold required for population recovery. In the absence of active management, populations of rare woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) continued to decline in British Columbia, Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogeography of Moose in Western North America
    Journal of Mammalogy, 101(1):10–23, 2020 DOI:10.1093/jmammal/gyz163 Published online November 30, 2019 Phylogeography of moose in western North America Nicholas J. DeCesare,* Byron V. Weckworth, Kristine L. Pilgrim, Andrew B. D. Walker, Eric J. Bergman, Kassidy E. Colson, Rob Corrigan, Richard B. Harris, Mark Hebblewhite, Brett R. Jesmer, Jesse R. Newby, Jason R. Smith, Rob B. Tether, Timothy P. Thomas, and Michael K. Schwartz Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Missoula, MT 59804, USA (NJD) Panthera, New York, NY 10018, USA (BVW) Rocky Mountain Research Station, United States Forest Service, Missoula, MT 59801, USA (KLP, MKS) British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development, Penticton, British Columbia V2A 7C8, Canada (ABDW) Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Fort Collins, CO 80526, USA (EJB) Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Palmer, AK 99645, USA (KEC) Alberta Environment and Parks, Edmonton, Alberta T5K 2M4, Canada (RC) Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA 98501, USA (RBH) University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812, USA (MH) University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071, USA (BRJ) Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Kalispell, MT 59901, USA (JRN) North Dakota Game and Fish Department, Jamestown, ND 58401, USA (JRS) Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment, Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan S9X 1Y5, Canada (RBT) Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Sheridan, WY 82801, USA (TPT) * Correspondent: [email protected] Subspecies designations within temperate species’ ranges often reflect populations that were isolated by past continental glaciation, and glacial vicariance is believed to be a primary mechanism behind the diversification of several subspecies of North American cervids.
    [Show full text]
  • Pciaficj Vid Verbyla, Ph.Df
    Space use and movements of moose hunters and wolves in the Yukon Flats, Alaska Item Type Thesis Authors Johnson, Ian Download date 09/10/2021 09:21:11 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/11122/6374 SPACE USE AND MOVEMENTS OF MOOSE HUNTERS AND WOLVES IN THE YUKON FLATS, ALASKA By Ian Johnson RECOMMENDED: PciAficJ vid Verbyla, Ph.Df Kris Hundertmark, Ph.D. Advisory Committee Co-Chair Todd Brinkman, Ph.D. Advisory Committee Co-Chair Kris Hundertmark, Ph.D. Chair, Wildlife Program Department of Biology and Wildlife APPROVED: SPACE USE AND MOVEMENTS OF MOOSE HUNTERS AND WOLVES IN THE YUKON FLATS, ALASKA A THESIS Presented to the Faculty of the University of Alaska Fairbanks in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Ian Johnson, B.A. Fairbanks, AK December 2015 Abstract Within the Yukon Flats, Alaska, subsistence communities utilize moose (Alces alces) as a primary resource (78% of households) and wolves (Canis lupus) hunt them as an obligatory prey item. Hence, understanding the potential of direct or indirect competition between wolves and humans is useful for managers. In Chapter 1, I used a novel approach utilizing spatially-linked interviews to quantify the distance subsistence users were traveling from communities and rivers to harvest moose in the Yukon Flats. My study was the first to quantify hunter access in the Arctic and may provide managers with a harvest estimation approach that may supplement the current harvest ticket system, for which reporting is considered consistently low. My final results and model may be used by game managers outside of the Yukon Flats where hunter success is linked to access to forecast the impact of creating new access on game populations or forecast the effect of access closure on game populations.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing Moose Hunter Distribution to Explore Hunter Competition
    ASSESSING MOOSE HUNTER DISTRIBUTION TO EXPLORE HUNTER COMPETITION Tessa R. Hasbrouck1, Todd J. Brinkman2, Glenn Stout3, and Knut Kielland2 1Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 2030 Sea Level Drive, Ketchikan, AK 99901, USA; 2University of Alaska Fairbanks, 1731 South Chandalar Drive, Fairbanks, AK 99975, USA; 3Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 1300 College Road, Fairbanks, AK 99701, USA ABSTRACT: Traditional values, motivations, and expectations of seclusion by moose (Alces alces) hunters, more specifically their distributional overlap and encounters in the field, may exacerbate perceptions of competition among hunters. However, few studies have quantitatively addressed over- lap in hunting activity where hunters express concern about competition. To assess spatial and tempo- ral characteristics of competition, our objectives were to: 1) quantify temporal harvest patterns in regions with low (roadless rural) and high (roaded urban) accessibility, and 2) quantify overlap in harvest patterns of two hunter groups (local, non-local) in rural regions. We used moose harvest data (2000–2016) in Alaska to quantify and compare hunting patterns across time and space between the two hunter groups in different moose management areas. We created a relative hunter overlap index that accounted for the extent of overlap between local and non-local harvest. The timing of peak har- vest was different (P < 0.01) in urban and rural regions, occurring in the beginning and middle of the hunting season, respectively. In the rural region, hunter overlap scores revealed a concentration in 20% of the area on 16–20 September, with 50% of local harvest on 33% of the area and 54% of non-local harvest on 18% of the area.
    [Show full text]
  • Petition to List the U.S
    BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR PETITION TO LIST THE U.S. POPULATION OF NORTHWESTERN MOOSE (ALCES ALCES ANDERSONI) UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT JULY 9, 2015 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY HONOR THE EARTH NOTICE OF PETITION Sally Jewell, Secretary U.S. Department of the Interior 1849 C Street NW Washington, D.C. 20240 [email protected] Dan Ashe, Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1849 C Street NW Washington, D.C. 20240 [email protected] Douglas Krofta, Chief Branch of Listing, Endangered Species Program U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 420 Arlington, VA 22203 [email protected] PETITIONERS The Center for Biological Diversity (Center) is a non-profit, public interest environmental organization dedicated to the protection of native species and their habitats through science, policy, and environmental law. The Center is supported by more than 900,000 members and activists throughout the United States. The Center and its members are concerned with the conservation of endangered species and the effective implementation of the Endangered Species Act. Honor the Earth is a Native-led organization, established by Winona LaDuke and Indigo Girls Amy Ray and Emily Saliers. Our mission is to create awareness and support for Native environmental issues and to develop needed financial and political resources for the survival of sustainable Native communities. Honor the Earth develops these resources by using music, the arts, the media, and Indigenous wisdom to ask people to recognize our joint dependency on the Earth and be a voice for those not heard. ii Submitted this 9th day of July, 2015 Pursuant to Section 4(b) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]